The opinion
LUMPKIN, Judge,
specially concurring.
I join with the Court’s decision in this case and further clarification of the balancing test we set forth in Robinson v. State, 743 P.2d 1088 (Okl.Cr.1988). It is the nature of the offense which has the potential for conflict with the principle that when one is put on trial, one is to be convicted, if at all, by evidence which shows one guilty of the offense charged. See Sweatte v. State, 732 P.2d 476 (Okl.Cr.1979). It is for that reason that we established certain criteria for the admissibility of other crimes’ evidence by the State in its case in chief in Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.1979). See also 12 O.S.1981, § 2404(B). This principle must also be considered when determining the scope of impeachment under Section 2609(A)(2). As we recognized in Robinson , “[i]n these situations, there exists a pressure on the jurors to think that ‘if the defendant did it once, he could do it again.’ ” 743 P.2d at 1091 .
The amplification of the balancing test considerations given by the Court in this case ensures if the defendant on trial is convicted, it will be through the evidence which shows him guilty of the offense charged; however, if he testifies, his testi *226 mony will be subject to impeachment which will provide the jury with an accurate picture of his criminal past. If the nature of the conviction is such that it is more prejudicial than probative then only the fact the conviction occurred is admissible. If the nature of the conviction is more probative than prejudicial then the nature is also admissible together with the fact the conviction did occur. Same or similar prior convictions sought to be used for purposes of impeachment will be reviewed with scrutiny. There is a presumption of prejudice as to convictions of this type which must be overcome by the evidence presented and the findings by the trial judge. This protects the defendant and, at the same time, precludes the defendant from presenting an inaccurate picture of his or her character. In addition, this decision does not preclude the defendant from revealing the nature of the prior convictions as a part of trial strategy. It only restricts the State in the admissibility of its impeachment evidence.